1. Technical Field of the Invention
The preferred embodiment relates generally to an ectoparasite diagnostic apparatus and method of use thereof, and more specifically to an ectoparasite diagnostic apparatus comprising a vacuum motor, a microscope, a display, a non-flexible pivoting door and a containment chamber, wherein live ectoparasites are captured within the containment chamber and utilized for testing the live ectoparasites susceptibility to different flea chemical compounds.
2. Description of Related Art
Throughout human history, pets have provided their owners with enormous amounts of companionship, loyalty, and entertainment, making it obvious why, to this day, pet animals remain popular. Most pet owners consider their pet animal as a part of the family. As such, most pet owners treat their pet with the same affection and protective care as they would with family members. It is this bond that makes most pet owners take meticulous care of their pets, often with the guidance of a veterinarian, to keep their pet healthy and maintaining a high quality of life. Achieving this goal with pets including dogs, cats, birds and mice, results in an everlasting battle with the common enemy of warm-blooded vertebrates: The ectoparasite, of which the main species is more commonly known as the flea.
Fleas are insects adapted with mouthparts able to pierce skin and suck blood from mammals and birds. That is, they are external parasites living by hematophagy (feeding on the blood of a host animal). There are numerous flea species; most often identified by the species of their primary host, such as, cat fleas (Ctenocephalides felis) whose preferred host is the domestic cat. However, in spite of their given name, flea species will feed off a wide spectrum of hosts. Thus, many flea species are possible threats to a variety of pets at any given time. It is with this constant threat in mind that pet owners must pay particular attention to their pets to prevent any possible flea infestation and/or to rid their pet quickly of an existing flea infestation.
With the advances of science and technology, chemical treatments are now the preferred method for eradicating fleas. Several commercial products are available for killing fleas on dogs and cats. Most of these products are chemicals that pet owners apply to the pet's skin. The products kill fleas and prevent a re-infestation for about 30 days. The chemicals used include imidacloprid, fipronil, selamectin, permethrin, and metaflumizone. Most of these chemicals have been widely utilized in the United Sates, Europe, and Asia. When utilized according to the manufacturer's recommendations, these products have been very effective at killing fleas. In fact, in the United States, pet owners spend over $1 billion annually for flea and tick control products. Nonetheless, reports are increasing about fleas developing resistance to the chemical effects of these compounds. For example, annual surveys of small-animal veterinarians have shown the percentage of United States veterinarians who have seen flea resistance to the chemicals nearly doubling in the past few years.
Veterinarians are in a unique position since pet owners with flea problems are most likely to seek professional advice and solutions from their veterinarian. Therefore, a veterinarian reporting increased resistance is a clear sign that popular professional products are becoming less effective. Currently, manufacturers of flea control products routinely test flea susceptibility to their chemicals in highly controlled laboratory tests with a single species of flea, Ctenocephalides felis. However, there are over 2,000 known species of fleas, and chemical manufacturers cannot adequately monitor resistance among that many species. Accordingly, veterinarians do not have a device for testing flea susceptibility to the products they provide their pet owner clients. Instead, they dispense professional products to pet owners that have been effective in the past. Unless pet owners call to complain that a recommended product does not kill fleas, veterinarians have no way of determining flea resistance to the product.
This raises the need for a convenient device that veterinarians can utilize in their clinics to test the effectiveness of different products before dispensing them to pet owners. Such a device needs to be able to capture fleas for each patient the veterinarian observes because there are so many different species. Susceptibility to different products may vary across the 2,000 species of fleas, so each of the fleas infecting each patient should be tested as a unique case.
Flea combs, consisting of closely spaced metal or plastic tines, have long been utilized to comb pets and thereby dislodge fleas. However, flea combs are susceptible to clogging from pet hair. Once fleas are dislodged, they are not easily captured for testing. Several patented devices have attempted to overcome this flaw through teaching mechanical removal of fleas from dogs and cats, which rely on first capturing the pest, but then almost immediately killing them through drowning, suffocating, poisoning or electrocuting means (since fleas are highly resistant to physical harm). These devices leave an operator with no opportunity to observe a live flea's reaction to commercial flea control products, and therefore such devices and methods are not particularly suitable as research tools.
Another device teaches a pet grooming device with a detachable head. The head piece is designed as a typical comb, with a pattern of bristles and openings designed to brush hair through a stroking motion. The headpiece is attached to a handheld vacuum apparatus, wherein a stream of air generated by the vacuum motor can be utilized to pull fleas from an animal's hair during the brush stroke of the grooming process. As fleas get caught in the air stream, they forcibly enter into a windowed vacuum bag housed within a transparent second chamber. Windowed sections of the vacuum bag allow a user to observe the inner contents of the bag. Once the grooming process is complete, the disposable vacuum bag containing any captured fleas can be removed from the device and sealed off by a drawstring before being discarded. Other than observing that the fleas have been captured, there is no means of analysis of flea behavior.
The windowed sections in the aforementioned device are supposed to provide a view of any of the captured contents within the vacuum bag. However, since fleas are small (typically between 1.5 to 3.3 mm long) they will be hard to find, either live or dead, within the bag, looking through just the windowed section alone. Further, observing live fleas in this device has the added difficulty of dealing with their extreme agility. Moreover, it will be difficult to discern between a flea and a spec of detritus captured by the vacuuming action. Also, this device does not allow a user to conveniently place chemical products within the bag to see their affect on the captured fleas, and instead a user may only observe fleas dying through suffocating means.
Additionally, there are numerous other grooming devices for pets that capture fleas from an animal during the grooming process that utilize a vacuum generated stream of air to provide the sucking force necessary to separate the flea from the animal's hair. However, once caught in the air stream the fleas are killed in a variety of ways. For example, one device teaches a staggered maze of fly-paper covered walls that are placed directly within the path of the air stream to catch fleas as they flow past. Another device places an electric grid within the path of the air stream to electrocute fleas as they flow past. Still another device utilizes a chamber filled with a mixture of water and chemicals, placed at the end destination of the air stream, so that fleas will be forcibly blown into the liquid where they will eventually be poisoned and/or drowned. Lastly, there are devices that direct fleas caught in the air stream into an enclosed containment chamber, wherein they are killed through various methods of chemical poisoning. While all of these devices have the express intent of mechanically removing fleas with a vacuum device and killing them by various exposures, none of them are provides for testing and observing live flea resistance to different chemicals utilized in commercial products.
Therefore, it is readily apparent that there is a need for a portable and easy to use apparatus that can mechanically collect live ectoparasites so they may be researched and observed while being exposed to various chemical products.